In passing, Rockwell describes the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade as a usurpation. But a usurpation against whom?

The only thing that Roe does, legally speaking, is restrain the action of state governments, by forbidding them from passing certain kinds of abortion laws, on the claim that any such law conflicts with the requirements imposed on the several states by the United States Constitution. But depriving someone of a legal power can only count as usurpation if the person or people you’re depriving had some kind of legitimate authority for you to usurp. And since when do anti-war, anti-state pro-secession anarchists believe that state governments have any kind of legitimate authority at all?

—Rad Geek

Advertisement

Help me get rid of these Google ads with a gift
of $10.00 towards this month’s operating expenses for radgeek.com. See Donate for details.

i think this really brings out a political tension that rose in later posts. for those of us who believe that the state itself is the problem, neither state government nor federal government is legitimate and it’s possible but fairly useless to attempt to quantify whether “minimal” government (which, to the more selfserving minarchist means a government that places minimal restrictions on the market’s ability to restrain the liberty of individuals). i find how anarchists are often misaligned with either fascist or extreme left ideologies to be analogous to how asexual people were misidenitified by kinseyian sexology as bisexual. asexuals have, it is true, equal attraction to the same sex as the opposite sex, which is none. likewise, a politics that assumes a spectrum of laissez-faire capitalism on one end and a big brother welfare state on the other doesn’t leave much room for you and me.

Coalitions of the Willing

This site is designed to be accessible for any web device, including text-only browsers and browsers with aids for users with visual or motor disabilities. For details, see the accessibility statement for radgeek.com.